DjangoBooks.com

cheap amplification options?

2

Comments

  • Ian RossiterIan Rossiter Fort Vermilion ,Alberta ,CanadaNew
    Posts: 203
    Another great clean boost is the Keeley "Katana".
    Check it out at ;
    www.robertkeeley.com

    It offers a clean volume boost without adding distortion.
    Practice ,Practice,EAT PRACTICE- Tommy Tedesco
  • richdaiglerichdaigle SLC,UT✭✭✭✭
    Posts: 181
    Roland has a low priced acoustic amp that looks modeled after the AER stuff...I think the line is AC60...I haven't heard one, but I've heard good things.
  • BluesBop HarryBluesBop Harry Mexico city, MexicoVirtuoso
    Posts: 1,379
    I just tried that Roland AC60, sounded pretty good.
    Not as loud as the AER, but loud enough and similar in sound, size and weight. It even comes with a gig bag.
    For half the price of a Compact 60, I think it's a great deal!!
  • harlemjoysharlemjoys Central Jersey✭✭✭
    Posts: 105
    I'm reading real good reviews of the Roland AC60, however since they are similair in price what would you guys recommend, the Phil Jones Cub or the Roland AC60?
  • richdaiglerichdaigle SLC,UT✭✭✭✭
    Posts: 181
    The shop I teach at just got an AC90 and and AC60...I've looked them over and they have a couple cool features...anti feedback and a kickback stand...I'm itchin to hear a gypsy axe through it.
  • HCQHCQ Northeast NJ✭✭✭
    Posts: 225
    I have been following this thread and similar ones. I tried the AC60 with my axe fitted with a K&K pickup. I was interested in it as Roland is promoting it with a $50 dollar mail in rebate. I play out very rarely so I wasn't really looking for or expecting audiophile type stuff that would fit within my budget parameters.

    Though much better than the really lower end acoustic guitar amps, the Roland has a couple of problems. It really compresses the high end. Additionally, if you run the amp at its louder volume setting, I found I was getting a bunch of digital artifacts even with the effects section turned off.

    The amp I settled on is the Fishman Loudbox. Lots of well executed features. The best being that its bi-amped, 90 watts to its 8" woofer and 10 watts to its 1" tweeter. On the back of the there's a mix knob to blend the tweeter with the woofer. 2 channels each with anti-feedback and phase controls, a mute switch that could also be foot switch activated. Channel 2 has 2 phantom powered inputs at either 24v XLR or 15v 1/4". There are other well thought out features as well. Plate and hall reverbs that sound good enough and aren't over baked.

    Lastly and more importantly, it sounds very decent with my petite bouche without any extra stuff. Right now I use with a simple a/b box so I switch channels for different volume levels for lead and rhythm.

    Its quite small and weighs at a bit less than 25 pounds.

    I got mine a bit cheaper, but I think most retail shops sell it at roughly $600.I mention this since I am not really a gear freak, but for the extra money, it outclasses the Roland. Fishman's website has additional information if you are interested.

    Thanks for all the archived information here. It really helps.
    HCQ
  • marcieromarciero Southern MaineNew
    Posts: 120
    I'm reading real good reviews of the Roland AC60, however since they are similair in price what would you guys recommend, the Phil Jones Cub or the Roland AC60?

    My two cents: The Roland is more versatile, and has a switch for magnetic pickups also, and sounds good with arch top. You can even plug a mic into it.
    On the other hand, the Phil Jones is way more hi-fi, without a doubt. And it is just as great for arch top as acoustic. It's probably not as loud, even though it's more watts, and it does not tilt back or have a bracket for a stand. Does have DI. The tone controls are extremely active, but I very rarely have to move them from detente. Cub gets my vote. Have not tried Fishman

    Mike
  • Dr. HallDr. Hall Green Bay, WisconsinNew
    Posts: 65
    I've tried both the Roland AC-60 and the Phil Jones Cub with piezo, mic, and magnetic pickups. Despite the attractiveness of their price tags, neither of these amps worked out for my needs.

    The Cub sounds very natural, but hasn't got much volume at all. You could use it as a monitor perhaps and send the signal to the p.a. or run two Cubs in stereo (doubling your cost), but I couldn't see using it as your only means of amplifying your guitar unless you're playing pretty quiet venues with attentive audiences (i.e. not a bar gig). The Cub distorts if cranked to maximum volume with either a magnetic pickup or a piezo, and you're going to want maximum volume out of this thing to be heard on many bar/restaurant gigs. So, not a good choice except as a monitor.

    The Roland AC-60 was equally unimpressive. At higher volumes (it is louder than the Cub) I got the same sort of digital background noise that the reviewer above was hearing. The sound was not as natural as the Phil Jones even at low volumes--compressed is a good word, as the reviewer above mentioned. The automatic feedback notch feature didn't work very well for me and seemed a bit like a gadget along with the digital effects which I would never use. That said, with a clip-on mic at a low volume gig it would probably be ok if you're not looking for super-natural sound fidelity.

    In this price range, the Fishman Loudbox 100 is a decent amp. It has a cool feature that might interest folks who are running a dual piezo-internal mic through a stereo cable and blending with a pre-amp (like the K&K Trinity system). If you plug a stereo cable from the guitar into the amp channel with phantom power, you can actually use the two channels on the amp to blend the volume and eq levels of the two signals, one for the piezo signal, one for the mic signal, thus eliminating the need for a pre-amp. The Fishman has feedback notches too. I don't own one, but it seems like a decent choice.

    AER amps are still my favorites for both acoustic gypsy jazz and electric archtops. So I'm sticking with them. In a way you get what you pay for, so try out the less expensive amps, but compare them with the AERs and Acoustic Images etc... and hear for yourself.
  • HCQHCQ Northeast NJ✭✭✭
    edited March 2009 Posts: 225
    Again, I don't want to sound like cheerleader for gear. But I just tried both my arch-tops, an old Gibson Johnny Smith and my Ibanez all maple Artcore. The phase switch was a godsend for these at louder volume. They really sounded great. Versatile for dialing various types good sounds I associate with an arch top. As a personal note, I like arch-tops to sound tight and warm, but still allowing for a little bit of stringiness and some pick striking noise, I guess that means presence. I use flatwounds on the Ibanez (Wes Montgomery type of tone) & round wounds on the Gibson (britgher contemporary tone). I had to be careful on the gain knob with the Ibanez because the low E string would sound a littlle flappy at B flat or lower. Maybe it has trouble translating a flatwound string or The pickups are adjusted too high. The Gibson is just fine as is.

    Anyway, with my Dell Arte petite bouche, I got really close to its acoustic sound using the mute switch to compare, back and forth, the guitar's sound vs the the guitar and amp sound. The real difference is adjusting myself to rid a bit "handling" noise when plugged in.

    I am new to the world of Selmer/Maccaferri guitars. I was initially only hoping for getting what I feel was a good, pleasing sound. With this my expectations were exceeded.

    In the GJ world of guitars and gear, its very hard, if not impossible to try out stuff with it all sitting in one room. I only posted my experiences and relied on what is archived in this forum because of this situation. For me the real gear is situated in a peron's hands and imagination when creating improvised music.

    BTW, I thought the Cub was great but like others pointed out, its volume is very weak. I felt it was very similar to the Loudbox with its -10db pad switch engaged.

    Lastly, I only posted this to pass on that there are a couple of good alternatives for amps that are well under $1000 or so dollars. In my opinion the AC60 was a good bet currently at $450 after rebate. At a $150 more, the Loudbox 100 was much better.
    HCQ
  • MichaelHorowitzMichaelHorowitz SeattleAdministrator
    Posts: 6,213
    It's worth mentioning that for those who like the CUB but aren't getting enough volume, you might want to upgrade to the Super CUB which is much louder:















    Also, a high gain pickup will give you a lot more volume from a CUB. My band mate uses a Stimer (which is very high gain) with the CUB and gets loads of volume. If you have a lower gain bigtone or other pickup try boosting it with a preamp of some sort. You'll be surprised how loud the CUB can get.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Home  |  Forum  |  Blog  |  Contact  |  206-528-9873
The Premier Gypsy Jazz Marketplace
DjangoBooks.com
USD CAD GBP EUR AUD
USD CAD GBP EUR AUD
Banner Adverts
Sell Your Guitar
© 2025 DjangoBooks.com, all rights reserved worldwide.
Software: Kryptronic eCommerce, Copyright 1999-2025 Kryptronic, Inc. Exec Time: 0.005997 Seconds Memory Usage: 1.009209 Megabytes
Kryptronic